Comments on: NFL’s “independent” counsel really isn’thttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/
ProFootballTalk on NBCSports.comSun, 02 Aug 2015 18:16:24 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: shzastlhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1770577
Mon, 07 May 2012 20:30:15 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1770577@kameleono, re: your 3d point, actually the CBA does not appear to require the NFL to prove anything to anyone. There is a copy of the CBA on the NFL’s website. Article XI, “Commissioner Discipline” sets forth Goodell’s jurisdiction, including “conduct on the playing field” AND “conduct detrimental to the integrity” of football. He is also hears the appeals decided by Cottrell when the on-field conduct involves “unnecessary roughness or unsportsmanlike conduct”. Nothing in that section requires Goodell to turn over evidence supporting the discipline. Compare that with Article IX, “Non-injury Grievance,” which allows discovery of all relevant documents before the grievance hearing. But regardless of whether the bounty issue is “on” or “off” field, it pretty clearly falls under the Article XI Commissioner discipline section which does NOT require any factual disclosures. So the players might have to hang their hat on the argument that Goodell no longer has jurisdiction for anything that occurred before 2011.

But all of that is really beside the original point of the post–that for the NFL to accomplish its PR goals, it does need to disclose the evidence, regardless of any legal or contractual obligation to do so.

]]>By: kameleonohttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1768233
Sun, 06 May 2012 16:10:31 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1768233Wow. There’s certainly a lot of ignorance about what’s going on here. Let’s address a few of them:

1) The NFL is NOT just any private business that can do whatever they like. They’re an organization that is governed by a collective bargaining agreement that allows it to get around many anti-trust laws that it could not necessarily violate if not for the CBA. It therefore HAS to comply with said CBA in ANY decisions regarding how it operates it’s players, especially in regards to how it affects it’s employees (players).

2) Then, there’s the idea that the NFLPA has signed over complete authority to Goodell to hand out discipline and then review the appeal as he sees fit without any independent body in the pipeline to second guess him. That’s wrong. Goodell has that authority (wrongly I beleive. Thank you Pac Man Jones you idiot!!) for incidents happening OFF the field of play. He does NOT have the same authority when it comes to ON field discipline. The NFLPA is arguing, and I think they’re dead on, that the pay to injure scheme was an on field situation and therefore the appeals process should run through Ted Cottrell and Art Shell who have been hired jointly for on the field situations. Instead of utilizing that method Goodell has utilized his authority under the player off the field conduct policy in an attempt to circumvent the accused players from mounting a successful defense.

3) Some fans are also throwing out the idea that the NFL doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone. Unfortunately, that’s also untrue. People this is not a court of law. It’s a grievance proceeding governed by a CBA. Unless this is the first CBA in the history of the world that allows the employer to arbitrarily fine and suspend employees without providing a shred of evidence then the NFL is REQUIRED to provide the evidence requested by the NFLPA. They don’t have to give the media anything but their obligations under the CBA and the National Labor Relations Act state that the employer must provide relevant information that it is using to justify their discipline to the employee’s union representative. Under a CBA, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the employer to prove that the the discipline was justified and reasonable, and that the employer did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in utilizing their right to discipline said employee. Unions even have the right to interview witnesses that the employer is using to support their case for discipline. Otherwise the due process rights of the accused are violated. Especially since the evidence so far sounds like its all allegations from other players and maybe coaches. If the only evidence the NFL has against these accused players is testimony from these “witnesses/whistleblowers” then the Union has every right to refuse to take the NFL’s word for it that they said what they said and they then have every right to attack the credibility and testimony of these witnesses in defense of their accused members Again, I’m not talking about a court of law. All of these things are allowed for under every CBA I have ever seen and under the NLRA. Hell, I’m only surprised the NFLPA has t filed a labor charge as of now.

4) I’m also hearing an argument that “Of course this independent counsel isn’t really independent but the NFLPA lawyer isn’t either!!” The big difference in the two is that the NFLPA lawyer isn’t pretending to be independent either as is the NFL’s little fraud. The NFLPA lawyer will tell you right up front who he’s representing. Will Mary Jo??

]]>By: shzastlhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767651
Sun, 06 May 2012 01:21:14 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767651@mornelithe — how someone could be adequately independent is very simple actually. There are THOUSANDS of lawyers in NY with similar credentials to this woman. Many of them have not represented the NFL on other matters. Hire one of them instead of someone who has represented you previously. Have you heard the phrase that you should avoid even the appearance of impropriety? That’s essentially what this is. Even if she would never INTENTIONALLY not view the facts objectively, it is extremely difficult to be truly impartial if the party that is asking you to review the evidence has been regularly paying you. For example, even the most honest person in the world should not referee his own son’s game. Judge’s regularly recuse themselves from cases if they own stock in a company that is a party in the case, etc. Sure, 99% of the time, the judge could call a fair case anyway, but why take that chance when there are other judges without any skin in the game who could do the same thing. When she was hired by Clinton and Ashcroft, it was not to evaluate Clinton or Ashcroft’s conduct. Since the NFL could have hired any one of thousands of attorneys who have never represented them in the past, or hired an independent group to pick the indenpendent attorney, the fact that they didn’t is quite odd. Particularly when the union attorney who saw the same evidence has come out and said that her opinion is way off base.
]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767622
Sun, 06 May 2012 00:56:36 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767622@ Shzastl: I’m still trying to understand how neither of you view her as adequately independent. I’m curious how someone would actually achieve your approval. Would it have to be a lawyer who you know, just decided in their off time they’re going to review confidential business evidence? Would it only be adequate if they did it pro-bono?

Of course, who’s to say they aren’t paid at a later date…right? I’m not necessarily sticking up for her, I am saying she doesn’t seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt here…quite the opposite, in fact.

As far as assuming that I give her a free pass, just because of her credentials. No, I typically don’t trust lawyers any further than I can throw them. However, I find it interesting that major figures in both the Republican and Democratic party’s have used this woman in the past, and appointed her to fairly important and high profile assignments. And while wading through the mire that is both political parties she kept her nose clean….quite interesting.

Could she be a puppet for the NFL? Certainly, but she’d be risking her reputation, and likely her position at her private firm in the process, possibly more….would think the kind of person that takes, would sell out long before this point in their career.

]]>By: shzastlhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767590
Sun, 06 May 2012 00:25:17 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767590@mornelithe – sir, you seem to get so intent on making your point that you don’t read what other people have ACTUALLY said. As noted in my prior post, she adequately disclosed the facts about her prior relationship with the NFL. I simply pointed out that based on the premise of Florio’s post, i.e., the NFL is trying to pass off as “independent” someone who is not, there could POTENTIALLY be some issues there, which would DEPEND on how her role was portrayed and the extent of the prior representation. Having read her press conference comments, I think she disclosed the relevant facts, even though whether she is truly “independent” is obviously debatable.

In any event, your suggestion that someone’s credentials make them immune from any wrongdoing is somewhat laughable.

]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767532
Sat, 05 May 2012 23:37:24 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767532@ Shzastl: Not really, she acknowledged her past affiliation with the NFL, and that they had hired her in this case. However, they had hired her to do an independent review of the material and the steps the NFL had taken thus far and give an unbiased opinion of the case as she saw it.

She isn’t leading the prosecution of a case, she simply observed the facts they had. Now, before we go questioning this woman’s integrity. How about we take a look at her credentials, shall we?

-B.S. from College of William and Mary, 1970
-Obtained her law degree from Columbia Law School in 1974
-Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 1992
-Appointed US Attorney for the Southern District of New York in March 1993 by President Clinton

She was also appointed by AG Ashcroft to investigate the pardon (Clinton) of Marc Rich, who was indicted for oil deals w/ Iran during the 70’s and 80’s.

What strikes me here is that both Clinton and Ashcroft used her during their terms, which means she’s pretty good at staying impartial. And her more noteworthy cases aren’t fluff either. She’s been doing this awhile and knows the responsibilities of any lawyer.

]]>By: shzastlhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767313
Sat, 05 May 2012 21:12:20 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767313So this is what she said:

“I represent the NFL. Since I have come back into private practice, I have advised the NFL on a number of matters, including other significant disciplinary matters. In terms of am I independent, the answer is yes I am. Indeed, my task was, although retained by the NFL, to do an independent review of the evidence and the process in order to ensure that it was clearly the case, based on my review, that there was strong evidentiary support and that the process being followed was thorough and fair.”

Based on that, she fully disclosed her conflict of interest, so the label “independent” is more a matter of opinion than representation of fact.

]]>By: shzastlhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767264
Sat, 05 May 2012 20:42:38 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767264There are ethical rules against lawyers making false and misleading statements in their professional capacities, which is not limited strictly to court cases. Sure there is nothing wrong with the NFL hiring her to review the evidence. What gets a little dicier is the extent she is making public statements (or she is going along with the NFL’s public statements) that she is truly an “independent” party. I’m not sure if she is saying it, the NFL, or if it’s just a term that the press has decided to use. And if she is saying it, whether it could be considered
false or misleading would depend on the extent that she is the NFL’s lawyer on other matters, which Florio discussed in that video clip on this page.
]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767248
Sat, 05 May 2012 20:31:12 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767248@ AceTW: I understand the desire to want to know, I really do. I personally don’t care, just as long as appropriate punishment is levied.

I will say this though, if it IS worse, again it falls under perception of image. The NFL represents a MASSIVE amount of money, and Gooddell, the owners, team management and their players certainly do not want to see their image tarnished any further. They’re constantly wanting to draw in new people, and that typically isn’t going to happen if you keep making the news for underhanded events, such as this.

In all likelihood, the reasoning is damage control. They probably feel that the more evidence they present, the NFL will be viewed that much more negatively. But, who knows, I could totally be wrong.

If this DOES go to court, then the entire thing changes. Because then the NFL will be forced into full disclosure, and the offending parties are certainly due their chance to address their accusers. But, right now, at this stage of the incident, the NFL simply does not have to do anything more than they already have.

]]>By: acetwhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767228
Sat, 05 May 2012 20:18:29 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767228@mornelithe – All in all, “I” want to know the truth of the matter for my own selfish reasons, but I simply cannot see any reason for the nfl to withhold this information from the players involved in the punishment unless they’re inviting a lawsuit. And you’re absolutely right, it could be worse than imagined and if they do let it out and it is worse, then the players, coaches and whoever will suffer more for it. I won’t defend what I know is wrong but I will defend someone’s right to know whether or not it’s wrong and whether they’re being accused without merit.
I will also concede that information doesn’t ‘need’ to be made public but if the nfl wants to clear all this up so people know they’re in the right (without just saying “we’re right” and leaving it at that) then they’ll do more than the nothingness they’ve done so far.
]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767207
Sat, 05 May 2012 20:08:08 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767207@ Shzastl: Yes and no, I mean, it doesn’t look ‘good’, but you have to remember, by law, lawyers have many rules surrounding them. And if this were to ever go to court, and she were to be used as an independent, and was found to be lying…she’d be disbarred in a heartbeat.

I know, it’s naive to trust any lawyer, in anything (Florio’s a Lawyer, isn’t he?), but it really depends on what the NFL hired her to do. If they hired her simply to analyze the evidence they have, and give them a no BS assessment of what they have…shouldn’t that believable?

]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767198
Sat, 05 May 2012 20:03:14 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767198Major corporations don’t have to take any employees crap. And they _love_ giving the impression that you’re expendable. This isn’t an isolated thing, many of them feel this way. It keeps you pushing yourself harder and harder in order to avoid either coming under their gaze, or being replaced.

HP is one such company, EDS (before HP bought them out) is another. These aren’t just small entities, they’re massive.

And you’d be surprised as to how many companies function this way, because they can. Is it right? Nope. But they do it anyway. That’s how they’ve forced worker productivity to rise 100%+ in the years of the financial crisis, while increasing profits to record levels, keeping wages stagnant, and not hiring new people. I’m really being honest here, this is common practice for most Big Businesses.

]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767191
Sat, 05 May 2012 19:59:09 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767191@ Acetw: In a way I will agree that the NFL is attempting to show the public some of the right in what they’re doing, but I think they’re doing it just to show the fans, players, and management of the other 31 teams that they’re trying to do right by this situation. It’s all about perception of image, really. Personally, I think they’re releasing just enough information, while not tipping their hand fully.

I wouldn’t presume to know why, but who knows, it could be far worse than we know. Understand? I can see how this is probably frustrating for some, but honestly, I just don’t care. The Saints did bad, and they’re getting punished for it. Will we ever see all the information? No. Will those who’re accused/guilty? Unlikely, but they’ll probably see more than we ever will (and probably already have).

I just don’t see what the big deal is, nor do I agree that ‘all the evidence’ should be made public, as Florio keeps clamoring for.

]]>By: shzastlhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767184
Sat, 05 May 2012 19:57:26 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767184Frankly, if Florio is correct that the NFL is her regular client on other matters, it seems unethical for her to present herself to the public (or allow the NFL to present her) as “independent” counsel.
]]>By: acetwhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767166
Sat, 05 May 2012 19:47:40 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767166@mornelithe – The reason doesn’t matter, and it still stands that if you’re working for a company that would fire you for such a thing you really need to move out of whatever country you work in or find other employment. And I did not label anyone with Nazi-esque names, I merely drew a correlation based upon YOUR statements, but it is quite telling that you took it the way you did by default. Bring up some “Nazi-esque” names and the first thought in your head is “NFL”. Very interesting….
Besides all that, neither Florio nor I have suggested any authority over anything so I’m not sure what led you to that conclusion…. Maybe reaching for something, anything to defend your own stance, perhaps?
]]>By: shzastlhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767165
Sat, 05 May 2012 19:47:38 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767165@mornelithe — again, the issue is not whether there is any legal basis to FORCE the NFL to disclose information. You are 100% correct, the NFL can discipline players in any way it wishes and can tell the fans they have no right to any information. But here, Goodell HAS determined its in the NFL’s best interest to try to convince the public that the NFL acted fairly based on real evidence, which is why they have brought in supposedly “independent” counsel. The point is that this is not going to accomplish the NFL’s goal, because she is paid by the NFL so fans don’t believe that she is actually objective. If the NFL wants to accomplish its goal of proving it to the public — which again, it has no legal obligation to do, but has chosen to try — then it’s going to take more than the word of its “independent” counsel, because the NFL is her regular client and she has an obvious conflict of interest.
]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767121
Sat, 05 May 2012 19:17:05 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767121@ Acetw: It entirely depends on the reason for the meeting, in this particular case…it would be in your best interest to attend the meeting to clear your name (if possible). Not doing so, shows extremely poor judgement, yet another reason a company can fire you.

Beyond that, you’re more than welcome to continue barking up this tree as long as you want. You can join Florio on this one. It won’t change a thing. You’re not getting any information you’re not entitled to by law, unless Gooddell feels its in the NFL’s best interest. You can label them with Nazi-esque names all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that neither you, nor Florio, have any authority over this matter.

]]>By: axesprayhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767103
Sat, 05 May 2012 19:10:49 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767103The evidence… You Can’t Handle the Evidence!
]]>By: jpspearhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767070
Sat, 05 May 2012 18:54:43 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767070Nobody is saying Goodell has a legal obligation to turn over the evidence. We all understand that. But until he does the Saints players and the media have every right to criticize Goodell’s handling of it. You don’t know what the Saints have done over the past three years, so how can you posit anything? Go ahead and name one play where you know somebody was hurt because of the bounty system. We’ll wait. (Hint: We can’t see Hargrove’s testimony and in his statement he said he wasn’t trying to hurt Favre.)
]]>By: acetwhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767069
Sat, 05 May 2012 18:54:07 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767069@mornelithe – I seriously don’t get how it ‘makes no sense’, but to each their own. And I don’t know what fascist organization you work for, but informing your boss you will not attend a meeting that you yourself requested should not be grounds for anything. At all. Ever. The idea that it would is patently ridiculous unless you work for the likes of Ikeman or Goebbels.
And full disclosure of the evidence is exactly what it says it is. Full Disclosure of the Evidence. Evidence, as you can see if you look up the definition is: “The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” Who gave up said evidence is only relevant if the evidence is proven to be faulty or to have been tampered with in some way. A real investigation would most likely uncover said faulty info, but we all know the nfl itself is incapable of mounting a real investigation of anything since they can only have their own best interests at the core of it. (Conflict of interest and all that…) This is why the nfl stayed far away from the recent wiretapping accusation against Mickey Loomis. Because the state police (an outside, impartial, not-on-the-nfl’s-payroll investigative unit) was investigating on their own and do not have ‘siding with the nfl’ as one of their mission goals.
]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767037
Sat, 05 May 2012 18:22:53 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767037@ Acetw: That makes absolutely no sense, especially if meeting with Gooddell can somehow contribute to a lessening of your punishment. And, just because an investigator was ‘flagged’ for misconduct in the past, doesn’t mean his attorney isn’t capable of representing his client (his attorney would have been present for this meeting…that they requested).

If you back out of a meeting with your boss, that in itself is grounds for dismissal. Heck, making an appointment with your boss, and then backing out of it, especially under these circumstances in itself is grounds for some kind of punishment.

Full disclosure of evidence would mean that people are asking for the names of the whistle blowers and their testimony. Mike Florio has not stated otherwise.

There is no tide to turn here, until it goes to court, period. As the duly appointed boss of the NFL (By the owners, and agreed upon by the players), Gooddell, by law, has every right to continue as he has. The only possible exception to this, is if Gooddell feels the image of the NFL is being tarnished by him withholding the information, and I posit the NFL’s image has already been tarnished by the Saints behavior over the past 3 years.

]]>By: acetwhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1767016
Sat, 05 May 2012 17:58:57 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1767016@mornelithe – You’re partially correct. Vilma was told by the NFLPA not to meet with the commissioner at that time because one of the nfl’s ‘investigators’ who has been flagged for misconduct in the past was going to be in attendance. In any case, if you back out of one meeting with the ‘boss’, does that somehow disqualify you from being told the specifics of what led to a punishment? I’ll argue all day long that it doesn’t.

“It’s also entirely likely that Vilma will never be given the names of the original whistle blowers.”

And I still don’t have a clue where some of you are getting this idea. Is it something y’all are just making up? Nobody involved in this has asked about the “whistle blowers”. They just want to see the evidence of wrongdoing that led to their punishment. The tide is quickly turning in their favor on this also. Not just from fans but from fellow athletes and reporters too.

]]>By: eric375http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1766999
Sat, 05 May 2012 17:47:58 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1766999“So why not just give us all the proof?”

Two things-

1. Because Roger Goodell isn’t required to.

2. If the evidence is as damning as Goodell makes it out to be it might actually be in the players and coaches/coordinators involved best interests that he holds on to that evidence and it never sees the light of day. Its possible the reason Goodell is holding on to that evidence is to protect said involved person(s) from further punishment/ legal action outside of the NFL. And further more if I’m Vilma or any of the other players/ coaches, and I believe I’m innocent, I’m not preparing to appeal the NFL’s punishment, I’m lawyering up for a defamation suit. Goodell has very good reasons to hold his cards tight to his chest. Damage control being the most important.

]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1766951
Sat, 05 May 2012 17:18:21 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1766951@ Acetw: Actually, you’re wrong. Vilma’s attorney requested a meeting with Gooddell (Vilma was supposed to attend), which Gooddell agreed to. And then Vilma changed his mind and declined the meeting. There is also no proof other than heresay (From the guilty party) that Gooddell never met with Vilma prior to the punishment being levied.

Not sure if you’re aware, but if you are going to get fired, or suspended, not going to meet the boss doesn’t stop that from happening.

Again, people are just upset that the public isn’t being given the full facts to this case. Sorry, but that’s just not going to happen. Not now, and likely not ever.

It’s also entirely likely that Vilma will never be given the names of the original whistle blowers. Why? Because their stories have already been corroborated by Hargrove (in writing, given to the NFL by the NFLPA), and if Williams ever wants to work in the NFL again, it’s likely that he too, will add further first-hand testimony to this case.

Lastly, in the case of a company being told of misconduct by it’s employees, from another employee internally, that persons identity is typically kept private. It’s why they have independent HR departments, for taking anonymous complaints/tips etc…

]]>By: acetwhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1766866
Sat, 05 May 2012 16:29:37 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1766866@mornelithe – “When people are fired, or suspended from work, is the public always made aware of the reasons, or evidence behind that matter?”

No, but the person being fired is, which the NFL has categorically refused to do. Jon Vilma found out about his suspension from Sportscenter for crying out loud. There is a boatload of fishiness about this whole thing and the only way the NFL can dispel it is to allow the participants to view the evidence (or lack thereof) in person.

]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1766841
Sat, 05 May 2012 16:08:49 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1766841@ Shzastl: As I said in my original post, take Spygate for example. The NFL destroyed hard evidence in that case, and technically speaking if it were as you say, the New England Patriots could’ve filed suit against the NFL, following the destruction of said evidence for violating it’s rights. Yes, they would have to have lied, but because the evidence is gone, there’s no proof it was anything but a blank tape because Goodell destroyed the evidence, right?

That’s the point, neither Spygate, or Bountygate are subject to disclosure laws, because they were handled internally by the business itself.

]]>By: txxxchiefhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1766839
Sat, 05 May 2012 16:05:56 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1766839Hey guys, the NFL is a private business, and it has the right to enforce it’s rules and bylaws as it sees fit. The press and the general public have absolutley no “right” to know all of the information involved. Florio knows this full well, but he has to write about something.

There is almost certainly very sensitive material in the league’s reports detailing who exposed the bounty system, and which individuals cooperated with the NFL’s investigation. These persons could be at risk for injury or other types of retribution if they were exposed for trying to end the Saints’ bounty program.

Florio also knows that the NFL (and especially the players who were paid bounties) do not want law enforcement involved in their affairs. Can you imagine what anarchy it would be if there were a criminal investigation after every injury or fight on the field?

Complain all you want about Roger Goodell being the “judge, jury and executioner,” but the NFL and the NFLPA both agreed on the system.

]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1766838
Sat, 05 May 2012 16:04:56 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1766838@Shzastl: No, they are not. Until this goes to court, this is a matter of a company reprimanding it’s employees. That’s the thing that people are missing here. Just because lawyers are involved, doesn’t mean this is a judicial inquiry, because it is not.

When people are fired, or suspended from work, is the public always made aware of the reasons, or evidence behind that matter? No, not unless it goes to the courts. And this incident has yet to be seen or heard by ANY judge.

This situation does not fall under any disclosure laws. Therefore, the bellyaching about giving the public all the evidence, is merely people not quite understanding reality.

]]>By: shzastlhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1766808
Sat, 05 May 2012 15:38:57 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1766808@mornelithe, the point isn’t that the NFL is required by law to publicly disclose the evidence. It’s that hiring purportedly “independent” counsel is the NFL’s attempt to convince the public that there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing based on the “objective” opinion of this highly respected former prosecutor. The problem is that she’s no more impartial than any lawyer retained by a large corporation to represent their interests–her client is the NFL. The only way to effectively convince the public that there is in fact such objectively overwhelming proof is to reveal that proof.
]]>By: mornelithehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nfls-independent-counsel-really-isnt/#comment-1766787
Sat, 05 May 2012 15:21:06 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=674288#comment-1766787@ Alimog: The NFL is a private enterprise, not the court of law. Judicial laws are not applicable to those entities until the case actually goes to the court. And even then, the judge can be requested to seal the proceedings, which is entirely likely since the bulk of the evidence is likely in the form of sworn testimony of whistle blowers, and their identities/safety are more important than Mike’s inane desire to see all the evidence.

I’m sure Mike felt the same way about Spygate, and I’m pretty sure he got nothing out of that deal either.